| |
|
What can PR-expert Edwards achieve?
By Regina Maria Jankowitsch
"Isn’t he like the young Kennedy?" said the person
sitting next to me when, in October, John Edwards stood on the dais of
the Marriott Hotel in Washington, and stole the show from the then nine
Democratic presidential candidates. Because the boyish looking Senator
from North Carolina was the only one, during his stump speech, to talk
directly to the audience and bring them to their feet, the only one who,
afterwards, did not disappear through a side door but took the route
through the main aisle, through the audience, the only one with a highly
professional presentation kit, including a CD-ROM.
Today, four months later, political insiders are trading Edwards as
an inside-track tip for the White House election in November. While John
Kerry seems to hold enough aces to be nominated at the Democratic Convention
in Boston in July - up to now he has more wins at the Primaries, more
money, more famous supporters. In contrast to Howard Dean, about whose
lack of chances suddenly everyone here is pleased, one admits to his “electability”.
Newsweek polls even rate him at 49% ahead of George W Bush’s 46%
. However
- since mid January John Edwards has been noticeably gaining in all
polls
- he is able to articulate his message clearly, concisely, and is
headline - worthy: "I want to close the gap between the two Americas,
between those who have and those who have not." There is no sign
of any kind of content in the other candidates’ messages. Kerry’s
"I can beat Bush" and Clark’s "I am a Democrat" cannot,
with the best will in the world, be described as a vision, as the very
necessary guiding principle which fires and inspires people with enthusiasm.
(Dean, after his hysterical lapse in Iowa, is restricting himself to
damage limitation).
- John Edwards can speak to every Southern white in the Southern
States whose vote, so vital to each Democratic candidate, is decisive
to winning-
Kerry can’t.
- Americans love the “Happy Warrior” type of president,
as FDR or Reagan were. A fighter, who radiates happiness and optimism
and knows how to motivate his voters. Edwards, son of a mill worker,
now a lawyer worth some US$ 25 million, looks the type. Kerry, in contrast,
mostly seems reserved and out of touch and, on nine out of ten photos,
looks like someone following his own funeral procession.
Many journalists and intellectuals who see John Kerry as
the lowest common denominator, are trying to push Edwards. "I am standing
for one America - for lifting up and tearing down" he said to his
enthusiastic supporters in South Carolina where, on February 3rd , he
won for the first time. Nevertheless, it won’t come to anything
this time. But in any case John Edwards has a good chance of making it
to the White House in 2008.
|
 |
| |
|
"No one deserves to be president" -
US Elections: The challenges for the challengers
The Democrats in the USA are looking for the right candidates. An important
question needs to be clarified: who has the qualities to beat George
W Bush?
Insecurity rules the American elections. "No one deserves
to be president" said Teresa Heinz-Kerry, wife of the Democratic
candidate John Kerry, in a recent interview on MSNBC. The responsibility
is too
great, Teresa added. A week earlier, she had said to CNN, in reply to
the question ‘how her husband had heard about his Iowa triumph’: "He
was in the bathroom and he was naked. It was a funny situation" .
Refreshingly far from any spin-doctoring, real, human and self-assured
is how the possible next First Lady seems at the moment. And so Teresa
is a great contrast to the official candidates, most particularly her
husband, the reserved, slightly stiff Senator from Massachusetts. Anyone
analyzing the US Primaries looking for the"personal communication" factor,
away from the strategies, financial power or lobbying, quickly goes pale.
First, apart from John Edwards, no one is convincing, but he is not a
front runner yet. Second, front runner John Kerry’s main message
is: "I can beat George W Bush" . Third, because of this,
George W Bush, not exactly a world champion in rhetoric himself, will
probably have a much easier time winning in November than might have
been expected.
This aspect of the 2004 race for the presidency typically reflects the
current political culture of the United States: the real meaning of leadership
hardly exists.
Dry words
Which Democratic candidate stands for what is easy to answer: John Edwards
wants to unite the country and the others? Silence. Even qualified
audiences such as political management students at the George Washington
University, in a recent survey, were unable to summarize, in one or
two sentences, the standpoints of John Kerry, Wesley Clark (now out
of the running) and Howard Dean, whose original anti-war position crumbled
after Saddam Hussein was taken prisoner. There are two reasons for
this communication desert.
First, the American electoral system encourages it. Because in every
state all delegates’ votes go to the winner in the end, the primary
objective is not to achieve total coverage of one’s messages but,
on a state by state basis, to convince those floating voters one needs
to get over the 50 per cent hurdle. The candidates simply don’t
bother about the rest of the voting population.
Second, the concept of the Primaries does not encourage holding defined
positions. Apart from John Edwards, who shows strategic courage and leadership,
all the other Democratic candidates stick to generalities and the mainstream.
Nobody dares to"come out" too early during the internal
party pre-elections with clear-cut demands, so as not to play into George
W Bush’s hands too soon. Interchangeable generalities and Democratic
clichés combined with broadsword swipes at the President characterize
the communication scene.
Which makes it all the more surprising that American advisors are flown
in just to develop messages and to be praised to the heavens as gurus.
But as, in the US context, these banal phrases are not meant to inspire
people à la Kennedy or Clinton, in the differentiated European
electoral system their failure is a foregone conclusion. One must therefore
ask why at least as many European political advisors aren’t active
in the USA as is true the other way around.
Appearance instead of authenticity
"All politicians
say the same thing anyway and never mean what they say." This
negative approach to politics and to a political career is - even in
the birthplace of professional political marketing, or maybe because
of this - very high. And after closer observation it is hardly surprising
as nearly all messages are read out. Put another way: nothing is left
to chance and, in case of doubt, none gives a damn for authenticity.
Pure theatre is the motto.
In Washington speech writers are on call 365
days a year. Some can read from the well-phrased speech script or teleprompt
better than others. The day before the State of the Union Address, always
broadcast on television January 20th, President Bush rehearsed it with
his advisors, and underwent classical training. This is common knowledge.
So every viewer knows that Bush needed 45 minutes at the rehearsal, but
the actual address- lengthened by lots of applause- took 57. In direct
contact situations with journalists it isn’t much better: even
old war horses like Donald Rumsfeld read out their statements word for
word.
In an atmosphere like this, spontaneity causes fear. As US politicians
generally undergo the same reading training as actors, he who is able
to formulate three sentences without a script, is considered from the
outset to be brave and credible. John Edwards shows how well one can
develop and get better and better. Daniel McGroarty, George Bush’s
ex- speechwriter, voted him best communicator in the race. (Please see
the interview). Edwards first had to overcome his fear, too. In November,
during an ABC talk show, when he was asked the intellectually challenging
question as to his favorite film, he was not able to give a spontaneous
answer. He was too frightened that, by naming"Terminator" or"Gone
with the wind" , he would scare away potential voters. Doubtless
an extreme case. However should tension go that far?
The fact that Howard Dean, that night in Iowa after his surprisingly
bad results there, completely lost it and had a"live" attack
of hysterics, without a script or lectern, emphasized all the more the
tendency to lack of liveliness, to moderate scripted speechifying. In
the meantime Edwards is the only one of the remaining candidates, after
their respective lost elections, to make his speeches completely freely.
And that earns him points. He has fans amongst journalists and is already
being dealt as having a chance in 2008. Bringing up the rear : ex- NATO
chief Wesley Clark. He even read out"We will win!" .
Pictures at the forefront
The malaise can best be seen in the case of long time favorite Dean.
With the help of the most modern communications technology, within
the shortest time, he collected more election financing and mobilized
more people than all the other candidates put together. But today he
hasn’t got a chance. Because the human element hit twice: first,
when he lost his composure and millions of dumbfounded Americans in
front of their T. V. screens spontaneously decided"Not him" .
And the second time was when Joe Trippi, heart, soul and creator of
the"Dean for America" movement, was thrown out and, during
a television interview the next day, broke down three times within
five minutes.
If the old rule that a picture is worth a thousand words still holds
true and, if at the same time we are all aware of the fact that about
70 per cent of the population are visually orientated, that is to say
register pictures better than anything else, then John Kerry’s
chances are limited. Why? Quite simply: Take ten random photos of the
Vietnam veteran and allow them to impact. In nine and a half of the photos
the top presumptive Democratic candidate looks as though he were following
his own funeral cortège. Does such a guy deserve to be president?
p&k guest author Regina Maria Jankowitsch spoke with Daniel McGroarty,
Senior Director of the White House Writers Group and"Special Assistant"
to George Bush from 1988 to 1992.
p&k: In terms of personal communication, what is the most striking
aspect of these primaries?
Daniel McGroarty: what most stands out is that in this respect John
Edwards is clearly the best. He is the only one who is able to get his
messages over in a very concise way."I want to close the gap
between the two Americas, between those who have and those who have not." Up
to this point no one has managed to convey the positions of John Kerry
or Wes Clark in so few words. John Kerry communicates: "I can
beat George W Bush" and Clark: " I am a Democrat" . And
since Iowa, Howard Dean does nothing else but be moderate.
p&k: Could John Edwards win the nomination?
McGroarty: That depends on other factors. Personal communication is
only one aspect of winning an election, even if it is a decisive one.
John Edwards has another advantage: his campaign is a positive one, he
presents himself as the always sympathetic, optimistic candidate with
a vision of the future. And that is important in the USA.
p&k: But doesn’t that contradict the fact that it was the
US which invented"negative campaigning" and propagates it
again and again.
McGroarty: I don’t think so. Negative campaigning, that is attacking
someone personally, can never be done by top candidates, even if it is
above the belt. That’s done by the second or the third tier. Think
of Ronald Reagan: his opponents hated him, but he never hated them back.
At least not openly. He always was the"happy warrior" . People
like that and John Edwards is quite right to put his money there.
p&k: What would you recommend to the two Johns, John Kerry and John
Edwards?
McGroarty: They should both stick to what they are doing right now.
Edwards has found his message. He does it very well, comes across as
the most sympathetic of all the candidates. John Kerry has nothing to
offer against this. That is why, quite rightly, he is concentrating on
his apparent electability and says little more than: I can beat the President.
p&k: Now communication isn’t exactly one of George W Bush’s
strengths. How decisive will this factor be to the outcome of the election?
McGroarty: Very decisive I think. George W Bush is good at presenting
a speech script. He can do that. It will be critical for him- even against
John Kerry- in the TV discussions. Because there he has to move freely
and be able to argue.
|
|
| |
|
Arnie is ahead
by Regina Maria Jankowitsch
Since he announced his official candidature for governor of the biggest
and richest US state, California, Arnold Schwarzenegger is constantly
on television. In August, CNN alone covered the actor-turned-candidate,
as the US media call him, 3,404 times and his opponent, current governor
Gray Davis, only 3,160 times. But Arnie, the running news, is under pressure.
The honorable TV consumer observes:
-
How Arnie’s ever-present smile freezes to a mask when, pressing
the flesh in a crowd, opponents pour Coke down the back of his neck.
And how he continues to shake hands, instinctively staying on the ball,
without really knowing what happened, he takes off his dirty jacket and
gives it to one of the body guards behind him. How the slogan is: "Arnie,
always smiling and clean" .
- How, on the chess board of political attacks, move and counter-move
take place each day; how on Friday, in front of his headquarters, feminists
scream that he is a macho and then on Saturday, his wife Maria
Shriver-Kennedy appears and says what a modern man he is; how his election campaign
managers
then only send female representatives to TV interviews.
-
How Latino Californians demonstratively"dis-invited" Arnold
to a Mexican Independence Day parade on 8 September because of his restrictive
stance on immigration. And how the candidate announces into 15 microphones: "I
am an immigrant and I know what this country gives to immigrants
and I love Mexico. I did there 4 movies."
-
How Schwarzenegger’s Austrian accent becomes an argument against
him when Gray Davis says that only someone who can pronounce"California" properly
should become governor. And how, on www.cnn.com cabaret artists and local
TV comedians compete with one another to imitate Schwarzenegger’s
English.
- How competitor Arianna Huffington uses a strip cartoon on her homepage
in which she literally overtakes Arnold, in his role as the negative
comic hero (www.votearianna.com).
-
How he only agreed to take part in a TV discussion once, on 24 September
and only then, after having the journalists’ questions in
advance. How he, the only one of the top 5 candidates, has no letter
of intent
posted on his homepage, and what a bitter aftertaste that leaves
in the mouths of people of goodwill.
Politicos say that Arnold’s election campaign is professional.
He has gathered good people around him and, up to now, has cleverly avoided
falling into the biggest traps. Arnold Schwarzenegger is fighting for
the post in Sacramento with the slogan: "Join Arnold and let’s
bring California back" . The Candidator’s other advertising
tools can be seen, in English and Spanish, on www.joinarnold.com. According
to the polls Arnold Schwarzenegger, currently standing at 28%, is the
best Republican candidate. But whether, despite brilliant TV coverage,
he will make it, still remains quite open.
|
|
| |
|
Pleasure at addressing people
By Regina Maria Jankowitsch
Even in the USA, the home of professional TV-compatible communications,
politicians are not a priori world champions in rhetoric. But the chances
of encountering charismatic personalities is incomparably higher than
in Austria, as was shown by a fact finding mission in Washington DC. In
brief, one might say that the Americans approach things more professionally.
Whether because of the US political system or a more highly developed
attitude to professional communication, preparations for political activity
start as soon as anyone announces their candidacy for one or other of
the parties. Communications professionals at party headquarters immediately
enter into action and place the candidate in a"Campaign School.
Although all these courses are voluntary, hardly anyone can afford not
to participate.
Back to school
In a Campaign School, prospective US politicians learn how to hire consultants,
read opinion polls, talk to journalists, acquire money, give speeches
and organise press conferences. Tovah Ravitz, the communications director
of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign, talking about the details of her
job: "In advance of an election campaign, we must also investigate
and research all a candidate's personal surroundings." To be more
precise: every statement ever made by anyone on a leading issue in the
campaign and any statement by the candidate on the leading issue. But
it also includes material from the candidate's years at university, in
order to check their attitude to the leading issue, their achievement
during their studies and any personal failings, or their tax returns and
any information that might be of interest to the public.
Cluster of personal advisors
" The ability to accept advice" is how Jeff Birnbaum, head
of Fortune Magazine's Washington office and intimately acquainted with
the heart of power (author of"The Madhouse" - the White House
from inside), describes one of the most important characteristics of successful
politicians. George W. Bush is a current classic example: Even with at
best average communication skills, the President has surrounded himself
with top-class advisors, whom he listens to. Advisors who are afraid of
telling the boss that he is going down the wrong track are for Birnbaum
an absurdity. For this reason, US politicians are surrounded by a veritable
cluster of personal advisors. Experts who are expected to criticise and
improve the candidate's personal behaviour on the path to victory: media
consultants, opinion researchers, direct mailing experts, personal strategists,
speech writers.
Intensive preparation before major appearances
George W. Bush, the leader of the most powerful country in the world,
practiced his Speech to the Nation -now available for US $ 165.- on VHS
cassette - three times before facing his people in the aftermath of September
11, 2001 to call for confidence and the struggle against terrorism. His
predecessor Bill Clinton was known for putting the final touches to his
speeches in his car - to the annoyance of his consultants, for this meant
that his speeches were never identical with the text that was shown on
the teleprompter.
Conclusion: A US politician can never have appeared in public so often
that he does not prepare himself personally down to the finest detail
before every important appearance. Anyone who in such a situation leaves
the drafting of speeches to their press spokesman, and then simply practices
the art of reading out loud at the rostrum will get little more than a
condescending smile in the USA.
Carl Forti, communications director for the Republican Congressmen, gives
specific tips for TV discussions:
- Do a dress rehearsal and practice all the answers to all possible
questions.
- Only talk about items that you have chosen, and stick to your message.
- In the case of a live interview without political rivals: leave the
studio if you are attacked beneath the belt and outside what has been
agreed. Stand up, smile and say: "I'll be pleased to be at your
service another time."
Appreciation of the competition
Outside electoral campaigns, US politicians do not hesitate to praise
the representatives of the other party before the camera. (In contrast,
in electoral campaigns, they attack each other with a level of comparative
negative advertising that would lead to a flood of legal actions here).
Republican Congressmen praise their Democratic colleagues for a good idea,
and a Democratic mayor actually says"Our Republican friends" when talking of a joint initiative for his town.
The Austrian way of only speaking negatively about political opponents
in everyday political life is unknown in the USA as such."The more
polarisation within a political system, the lower the quality of the politicians" states Kathleen Schafer, professor for leadership of the Graduate School
of Political Management at the George Washington University."In
such cases, charismatic leaders are either not elected or become frustrated."
US rules for winners
A selection of advice addressed by American communications experts
to their European colleagues for prospective charismatic politicians or
their advisors:
- Develop a vision - freely adapted from John F. Kennedy!
His dream of landing on the moon by the end of the 1960s inspired citizens,
business and research not only in the USA but also throughout the whole
of the western world.
- " Listen, speak their words and win" - but listening to the
needs of people at the same time, is Jennifer Laszlo's recipe for success.
She was the first to work with focus groups in political marketing,
helping Bill Clinton to his victories. In contrast, Laszlo doesn't believe
in minority issues in election campaigns: "I am also against the
discrimination of homosexuals for instance, but it would not work to
make it a major election campaign issue."
- Use television!
Commercials, television discussions (Ravitz: "The more debates
I get the better" ) and items in the news programmes are unanimously
seen as the most effective form of TV appearance before elections. According
to Forti, the Internet is hugely overestimated as a source of information
in elections, and talk shows are more a means of making oneself known
well before elections than winning points directly before the poll.
- Give each week a different topic focus!
Every day the election machine behind the candidate supplies the various
media and the public with the"Message of the day" on the"Issue of the week" .
- Soccer Mums = Target group No. 1
The results of elections are increasingly being determined by women.
And this is not just a question of quantity, but also because women
are to be found increasingly among the floating voters. At present,
US politicians are focusing above all on non-working mothers with adolescent
children"who drive their children to their football clubs in the
afternoon" (Laszlo) and for this reason are known as"Soccer
Mums" .
" Here, you win because you win" explains Jennifer Laszlo."With
you, you win because your party wins." US parties are relatively
free of ideology and hence relatively unimportant - the focus and spotlight
is on the individual politician. As a result, he need hardly take account
of the interests of party headquarters and can - if he finds the necessary
financial support - pursue his or her objectives and ideas much more clearly
than in Central Europe. Whatever the party, however, Laszlo and Forti,
Ravitz and House agree that, irrespective of the system, there is one
characteristic that marks political winners: pleasure at addressing people.
Political fragments
- The highest paid media trainer is Michael Sheehan - he worked for
Bill Clinton and charged US $ 9,500.- a day.
- Press conferences take place around the clock. The usual basic rule
here, never before 9.30 and never after 11.00, is unknown in the USA.
- US politicians are much less willing to kowtow to talk show masters
than here: "It's very easy here to get yourself on a talk show," says Peter Hickman of the National Press Club Newsmaker Committee,"there
are so many of them" .
- Democratic development aid, made in the USA: "Our greatest
success was the non-violent attack on the government building in Belgrade
-
only one person was killed," says Colleen House, a former local
politician from Michigan and Managing Director of the IRI (International
Republican Institute). From Washington, she sends coaches and trainers
to dictatorships in order to teach the supporters of democracy political
and media-friendly behaviour. Before the presidential elections in
Serbia that lead to the removal of Slobodan Milosevic, House's people
in Budapest
had taught Serbian students how to demonstrate, how to look into a
CNN camera and that you don't take women and children on demonstrations.
|
|
Change & Leadership 
